3 ms·

Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still ex

Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still exponential but much slower. Hopefully the new measures put in the past week will slow it even more. At which point, once we have fast and reliable testing, we can actually start having people go out more and reduce the isolation, since we can count on better testing to stop the spread.

greenshackle2 7y ago
In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Sounds like what happens when one of the criteria to get tested (which is expensive) is "having been in presence of known existing COVID-19 case". It's a symptom of massive under-testing and would be greatly alleviated by an inexpensive test.
  - greenshackle2 7y ago
    Absolutely. Canada still only tests people with symptoms AND (have traveled recently OR have been in contact with a confirmed positive case). Yet the messaging until recently was "no evidence of community spread, risk remains low" with very lukewarm response. Of course there is no evidence if you don't look for it. I understand they don't want to incite panic but anyone who's been paying attention to other countries can see that community spread is inevitable unless you have strict measures and robust testing, very early on. I'm pissed our politicians have ignored lessons from other countries.
- martinpw 7y ago
  Exactly. Starting from the first case is not useful. Starting from a baseline of 100 offers a more consistent comparison. And for that, almost all countries are following the same path. I think this site may be paywalled unfortunately (but there is just a $1 for the first month charge): https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06... The second graph in there shows Canada is tracking exactly the same path as most European countries and the US.
btilly 7y ago
For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. My niece and great nephews in Victoria, BC just turned up with symptoms for COVID. They were told to self-quarantine and were not tested. You cannot believe the numbers from any country which does not have a robust testing regime. That emphatically includes Canada along with the USA.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Yeah, in Denmark yesterday simple math says that 18% of people tested was infected. That's not to suggest that 18% of the population is infected. Merely suggests that positive tests is a useless metric because people are not tested. Number of people admitted to hospital might be a better indicator -- though this has a lot of delay.

greenshackle2 7y ago

In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.

r00fus 7y ago
Sounds like what happens when one of the criteria to get tested (which is expensive) is "having been in presence of known existing COVID-19 case". It's a symptom of massive under-testing and would be greatly alleviated by an inexpensive test.
- greenshackle2 7y ago
  Absolutely. Canada still only tests people with symptoms AND (have traveled recently OR have been in contact with a confirmed positive case). Yet the messaging until recently was "no evidence of community spread, risk remains low" with very lukewarm response. Of course there is no evidence if you don't look for it. I understand they don't want to incite panic but anyone who's been paying attention to other countries can see that community spread is inevitable unless you have strict measures and robust testing, very early on. I'm pissed our politicians have ignored lessons from other countries.
martinpw 7y ago
Exactly. Starting from the first case is not useful. Starting from a baseline of 100 offers a more consistent comparison. And for that, almost all countries are following the same path. I think this site may be paywalled unfortunately (but there is just a $1 for the first month charge): https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06... The second graph in there shows Canada is tracking exactly the same path as most European countries and the US.

btilly 7y ago

For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. My niece and great nephews in Victoria, BC just turned up with symptoms for COVID. They were told to self-quarantine and were not tested. You cannot believe the numbers from any country which does not have a robust testing regime. That emphatically includes Canada along with the USA.

jopsen 7y ago
Yeah, in Denmark yesterday simple math says that 18% of people tested was infected. That's not to suggest that 18% of the population is infected. Merely suggests that positive tests is a useless metric because people are not tested. Number of people admitted to hospital might be a better indicator -- though this has a lot of delay.